This was obviously a very bidirectional strategy. For example, that time the Soviets stole a sidewinder missile from a German air force base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icXn0gzaQNk&t=30s
They did make some adjustments like actively cooled tiles. But they had the smarts to stop the program before it turned into a money sink.
After all, the Shuttle's original goals were never reached. The launch cost was supposed to go down immensely and the cadence to once a week. In the end the shuttle wasn't so much reusable as it was refurbishable.
It did give us the ISS though by making orbital construction possible as it was basically a big space campervan/truck combo :)
I've heard but cannot find a reference for the Space Shuttle being able to land autonomously except for the landing-gear release switch, which had to be manually toggled. This StackExchange thread has a similar observation (also without citation): <https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/23992>
That may simply be an urban (or LEO) ledgend...
(Up-thread there's discussion of issues with the US craft's somewhat uneven experience in attempting to automate other parts of the landing sequence.)
There's a Nasa report on automated modes of the Shuttle as well, which notes that "converting the Shuttle fleet to an autonomous system will be challenging and expensive", here: <https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100033420/downloads/20...> (PDF)
I also recall rationales offered for Buran's fully-automated operation being both that the Soviets had lower trust in their astronauts' ability and/or trustworthiness, and that fully-automating the craft enabled non-crewed test flights during project development. Again, no sources, and don't take me as any authority on this point.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070019347/downloads/20...
But it was still worth seeing if the damaged orbiter could re-enter and land, so they developed the cable (stored at the ISS) and software to allow an unmanned orbiter to allow that. Obviously was never used.
Saving expensive main engines? Not on the orbiter, but on separate rocket, in subsequent plans. Solid fuel boosters? Too risky, better use the world's most powerful liquid fuel engines. Carcinogenic onboard propellants for RCS? Use cryogenics instead, and make sure they're preserved well for a month of flight. A few improvements here and there, and while externally Buran is quite similar to Shuttle, the whole launching stack is already less so, and the list of different details is not that short.
Next one would be Concordsky.
I'm not even saying it's bad. This thing happens in IT all the time. Nobody reinvents the wheel. Look at Apple vs Samsung or the likeness between desktop GUIs.
I think it was more pride that promoted them to make excuses. After all these are huge prestige projects.
The Concordski too yeah. The drooping nose was a curious design decision in both (quite a few drawbacks to this, since an actuated mechanism so far from the centre of gravity will cost a lot of payload). They could have gone with something like a periscope instead (like what's on the Soyuz)
I don't buy the "there's only one way to design this" angle especially since both camps had completely separate parts and manufacturing chains with their own strengths and weaknesses.
but..did they? Or did the oil prices crash taking USSR and its space program with them?
Buran is not a copy of the Space Shuttle. I mean, the most important element of the shuttle, its reusable engines, is not even present on Buran.
From a military perspective there was at one point a plan to use the Shuttle for overhead imagery with film cameras. Launch from California into a polar orbit, make a single photo reconnaissance pass over the USSR, and land immediately back at the launch site for film processing. But advances in spy satellites eliminated the need for that mission.